Norway Spruce for strip planking?

It's not entirely clear whether 12215-7 (for multihulls) has been fully implemented in SCT, but it does have a "multihull" selection. It is interesting to spend time with - not a waste of time, if only because the format allows one to see relationships and get a feel for them. But to be able to produce anything useful one would have to get to know it well - so I agree that it's not ready for general use by anyone to spec scantlings.

If one relies on expert consultants for everything one never learns for ones-self. This applies to physicians, too. If you have a serious malady you should be doing your own research alongside discussing it with your doctor, yes?

 

I agree. As tool for formation, yes. But you need the basic knowledge to fully understand the purpose and to extract the marrow from the bone.

 

12215-7 is in the public comment period.
See http://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/Home/Project/201001212
Any idea who is on the committee? Do you think they're the right people?

 

No idea who's behind this "committee". For the moment the results are not outstanding, but it's a long way before the polished result. Wait and see.

 

There is a big difference being a practicer and just having a general knowledge of the subject. As everybody is fallible, and as sometimes the practicer is not so good, it's better to have some lights on the subject and smell a possible problem. Blind trust is a stupidity but paranoia is also stupid...

But for serious work on a sensitive field you have to rely on experts. Scantlings on a small boat, mono or multi, is a rather simple task and can be done by an educated amateur with scientific background. Scantlings of a 1000 feet cargo is a bit more complicated...and asks for a team of engineers.
Tuning a hot rod engine is just recipes, conceiving a Formula One or a big diesel engine is another task.

There is a limit in the learning curve simply because of the amount of the needed knowledge (mathematical analysis, tensorial calculus for example in structural engineering) to go further, and the time you have a day, 24 hours less sleep, feeding and earning some revenue.
So you can't become an specialist, but it's nice to have a good understanding of the subject, without the need to go deeper.

 

Haven't posted for a while.I also have been back reading everything thats been said.There is a lot of intelligent,well informed opinions.However-after much debating with a friend and some family members of mine i'v actually made the decision to do a complete turn-a-bout with regards the concept of building the boat from scratch.Originally i was going to put down a rough design,refine it over the course of the year with the help of you guys-then get it 'looked' over by a professional marine architect for any flaws in the design that had been missed and were potentially dangerous.
It would have made some economical sense to then procure the materials for the build from a family members farm (the wood in this case) and have it lumbered at the small mill we have in the barn-as i am a joiner i was and am pretty confident of my abilities to work the wood as needed(i must stress that although i am very familiar with various types of wood genus and there general properties in my day to day life i am completely unsure of how the wood(s) will react or behave in a marine environment).
However-after working out the pros and cons and 'totting' up the costs i/we have decided to buy a wooden boat (white oak ribs etc as i also have access to this material but in less substantial quantities) planked with mahogany OR another suitable wood....maybe even white pine...(but that is neither here nor there at the moment).
It would be an absolute dream to fabricate my own boat from my own lumber and efforts (sweat,blood,tears etc)...ONE DAY...but if i want to get this project actually done and up and running,bearing in mind i have very little experience of designing,building and then outfitting/rigging a boat,i think the best way for me to proceed,bearing in mind that i AM very hands on and want to INVEST some of 'ME' into the boat that i/we intend to sail a hell of alot,and also utilizing my carpentry/joinery skills is to simply(and i dont say that lightly..lol) RENOVATE a boat back to its original beauty.
This way i can still have the sweat,blood and tears (but to a lesser degree...hopefully)-still utilize the farm lumber and also utilize my skill set and also weighing up the economic cost i just believe this is a more viable option for me in the long run.
And the reason for quoting Ilan above is what he is saying i actually concur with.A monohull,i believe,after talking to various people is simply,for me,a better option.They point better and theres not so much flaffing about when tacking.I also believe,apart from stability,they perform better in rough seas and high winds-and you have more of a 'feel' for the boat-especially when the wind picks up and the boat starts to heel.You may not necessarily get this with a cat so you need to be constantly vigilant,looking for wind and weather changes (some would say you should be doing that anyway-but the reality is on long cruises you may leave the helm for short periods and be otherwise distracted).This cat that was (semi) planned would have been fairly heavy as well,so beating upwind may have become problematic in light winds.
So...in conclusion,for me now it is going to be the renovation route on a monohull sailboat with a ketch rig setup.
I'd just like to quickly add i very much appreciated all the views and comments that were put forward by you all on this subject-theres alot of very interesting,intelligent and pertinent views and people here.That being said i hope now to be posting on here very soon asking for advice and help during the renovation regarding specifics.I'd very much like to use peoples knowledge and experience again.It is incredibly helpful.
One thing that has been at the forefront of my mind recently is CHAINPLATES...there fabrication,positioning and the material they are made from.BUT thats a different matter for a different thread...hope to see you there.
Again,thanks to you all.

 

Thanks, Ranger. If you can get hold of the article cited at the start of this thread:
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/boat-design/material-construction-choices-article-42587.html
I think you'll find it worthwhile reading. Here's the boat discussed in the article:
http://www.stephenswaring.com/sail/images/big/swwyachtdesign-isobel04.jpg
If you like bright finished wood check out the W-37 Race Horse at the Stephens/Waring website:
http://www.stephenswaring.com

As for chainplates, is you inclination stainless steel, composite, or something else? On a new build or an existing boat? The difference is that with conventional stainless steel chainplates most of the loading is on the bolts. With composite chainplates the idea is to spread the load, and it's important to time your epoxying to achieve good primary bonds.

Back on the theme of finding the DESIGN you love, here's a historic design that begs to be built:
http://www.uffafox.com/seaswall.htm
I don't doubt you could build a boat from scratch - I (we?) just think you would do well to shop for a purchase a design.

 

Ranger You're welcome.
Stephen, a skerry cruiser from the old Fox, a 30m2...very old souvenirs. They were very common in Nordic countries and many survived. The most common was the Norwegian small Dragon.
They are pretty fun to sail, and were fast by 1938-1960 standards, but for cruising...a nice 30 degrees healing going upwind with water on the deck, as habitable as a drain pipe with 4 feet headroom, and as wet as a shower, but with cold sea water. They were the first ultralights or ULB.
In the sixties the modern declination was the Swiss Toucan, alway running strong nowadays.
For racing or cold wet uncomfortable coastal cruising, they were truly exhilarating and very formative, as the least mistake meant a falling mast. Even some made journeys from Norway to UK, equipped with 2 hand-pumps, and 2 strong guys to actuate them if needed. Good hand pumps were absolutely mandatory because the leaks of the hull in strong sea and the wave piercing behavior.

 

Thanks for the skerry cruiser discussion, Ilan. I've posted about what a modern extrapolation of that rule might mean for the America's Cup at http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/sailboats/next-2016-so-americas-cup-ac-35-a-44996.html#post586486. What an improved modern version might look like and the merits of building a faithful replica are two different discussions, of course. Either way, though, a wood/epoxy version would be inherently stronger. I know of strip plank boats that use the same plank thickness as for carvel, but with much less transverse framing, making them pretty much monocoque.

I think the Atlantic Class boats in my area may be even wetter than the boats you've mentioned!
http://www.atlanticclass.org/
http://atlanticclass.org.dnnmax.com/PhotoGallery/tabid/63/AlbumID/408-8/Default.aspx

 

I just discovered this interesantísmo thread. As it is mentioned on several occasions my softyware SCT I would like to clarify that the latest version of this program probably gives a much tighter results for the construction of wooden hulls. On the other hand, since the ISO 1225-7 standard does not just come out, SCT has built a direct calculation for the wet deck and transverse beams of catamarans.